% when backing pool player

[Inaction]

Now I see why people arent lining up to become backers for pool players.

70/30, 3K bet to only win 2100. That's a terrible risk to reward ratio.

Not if they are matched up against me.

 

[branpureza]

Now I see why people arent lining up to become backers for pool players.

70/30, 3K bet to only win 2100. That's a terrible risk to reward ratio.

That depends on the odds.

 

[mantis99]

My other half was offered 20 percent by a prospective backer to compete a challenge-type match some years ago, to which he politely declined. He personally felt it was an insult. That is coming from the player's point of view.

I totally understand the view of the stakehorse, since they're the one putting their dough at risk by financing the entire operation. They can win a bunch or lose it all; whereas, the player gets a free grab at the golden ring. But it *is" the player doing all the work, and it's hard work, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It's extremely intense, especially if it is being filmed. There is a great deal of pressure that one can only understand if they have experienced it.

I personally think 50/50 *after* expenses is fair, but I'm sure I am in the minority. :grin-square:

50/50 after expenses means the player is getting more than the stake horse. I can't see that being reasonable when the player is risking nothing. 60/40 plus expenses seems much more reasonable.

 

[ibuycues]

Fair and Equitable

My other half was offered 20 percent by a prospective backer to compete a challenge-type match some years ago, to which he politely declined. He personally felt it was an insult. That is coming from the player's point of view.

I totally understand the view of the stakehorse, since they're the one putting their dough at risk by financing the entire operation. They can win a bunch or lose it all; whereas, the player gets a free grab at the golden ring. But it *is" the player doing all the work, and it's hard work, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It's extremely intense, especially if it is being filmed. There is a great deal of pressure that one can only understand if they have experienced it.

I personally think 50/50 *after* expenses is fair, but I'm sure I am in the minority. :grin-square:

JAM,

I think this is entirely fair, and the way I`ve done it my entire life. You describe it well. I don`t think you are in the minority either.

Nice post.

Will Prout

 

[JAM]

JAM,

I think this is entirely fair, and the way I`ve done it my entire life. You describe it well. I don`t think you are in the minority either.

Nice post.

Will Prout

Thank you, Will. What some folks seem to forget is the player is doing all the work, while everybody else is sitting back and enjoying the show. Without the player, there's no action. Sure, the stakehorse makes things happen, but you still need the player who, again, is doing all the work. I think that's worth a little something. :grin-square:

 

[JAM]

50/50 after expenses means the player is getting more than the stake horse. I can't see that being reasonable when the player is risking nothing. 60/40 plus expenses seems much more reasonable.

I think the player earns 50 percent after expenses. The expenses are a cost of doing business in the pool world, sad but true.

 

[CreeDo]

Just do it mathematically.
You figure out how often you think your horse will win, as a percentage.

If he's making actual fair games, and seeking out tough action,
you pretty much are guaranteed to lose money.
If his win rate is 50%, then after 20 sets (at $100 each)
you paid out $1,000 and won $500. He gets $500.
So it basically is like you just gifted $500 to him.

If he got nothing at all and won 50%, you would break even.
You can't do any better than that in the long run.

So you need a player who wins a lot. Which maybe isn't as fun to sweat.
If he can get a win rate up to 75%, then you can split it right down the middle
and actually make a little money.
After 20 sets, you pay $500, win $1500, give $750 to your horse,
and end up with $250 net in your pocket.

So basically, splitting it right down the middle is a sucker bet
unless your horse wins 2/3rd of his matches or better like clockwork.

 

[JAM]

Just do it mathematically.
You figure out how often you think your horse will win, as a percentage.

If he's making actual fair games, and seeking out tough action,
you pretty much are guaranteed to lose money.
If his win rate is 50%, then after 20 sets (at $100 each)
you paid out $1,000 and won $500. He gets $500.
So it basically is like you just gifted $500 to him.

If he got nothing at all and won 50%, you would break even.
You can't do any better than that in the long run.

So you need a player who wins a lot. Which maybe isn't as fun to sweat.
If he can get a win rate up to 75%, then you can split it right down the middle
and actually make a little money.
After 20 sets, you pay $500, win $1500, give $750 to your horse,
and end up with $250 net in your pocket.

So basically, splitting it right down the middle is a sucker bet
unless your horse wins 2/3rd of his matches or better like clockwork.

Well, in some circles, they used to call it gambling when a player got staked, but I do realize that the sentiment of today is that people shouldn't stake anything unless it's a lock. That's how they gamble in 2014.

 

[pathman]

First off let me say, I believe backing a pool match is the worst bet in gambling, laying all the risk to win a great deal less than your original bet just isn't what I want to do with my money. Having said that, if you give your horse any less than 50% after expenses you are asking to get dumped, plus you're just a douchebag. These guys play their hearts out for multiple hours and they deserve a fair cut of the action. I've only rarely staked a match, I usually insist my player put up half it all possible, that way we both have skin in the game and I don't worry as much about getting dumped.

 

[JAM]

First off let me say, I believe backing a pool match is the worst bet in gambling, laying all the risk to win a great deal less than your original bet just isn't what I want to do with my money. Having said that, if you give your horse any less than 50% after expenses you are asking to get dumped, plus you're just a douchebag. These guys play their hearts out for multiple hours and they deserve a fair cut of the action. I've only rarely staked a match, I usually insist my player put up half it all possible, that way we both have skin in the game and I don't worry as much about getting dumped.

So very true in more ways than one!

 

[iba7467]

I've been doing it this way for a million years. My expenses come off the top and we split the rest 50-50. I've also done deals where the player is responsible for his own travel and daily expenses and I take care of the entry fee and room. In this case we split all winnings 50-50 with nothing off the top.

I totally understand the view of the stakehorse, since they're the one putting their dough at risk by financing the entire operation. They can win a bunch or lose it all; whereas, the player gets a free grab at the golden ring. But it *is" the player doing all the work, and it's hard work, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. It's extremely intense, especially if it is being filmed. There is a great deal of pressure that one can only understand if they have experienced it.

I personally think 50/50 *after* expenses is fair, but I'm sure I am in the minority. :grin-square:

JAM,

I think this is entirely fair, and the way I`ve done it my entire life. You describe it well. I don`t think you are in the minority either.

Nice post.

Will Prout

I respect all three of you, but the above can only work when staking a champion caliber player - and almost only in tournaments. Then, of course it works because you have the 75+% favorite to get the cash. If you stake a "fair" game you are going to lose and lose big.

For anyone not understanding the math, I can email you a spreadsheet or discuss further. For everyone just too lazy/uninterested to do the math, I'll summarize below (all figures assume $300 bet per match for simplicity and two matches per month).

50% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,800
Player wins $1,800

50% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer loses $450
Player wins $2,250

50% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $300
Player wins $2,700

60% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,440
Player wins $1,440

60% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer even
Player wins $1,800

60% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,440
Player wins $2,160

70% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,080
Player wins $1,080

70% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer wins $450
Player wins $1,350

70% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,980
Player wins $1,620

TL-DR: Even with a 70/30 split, the player will have pocketed to the positive more money than the backer over time unless they win greater than 71% of the time. At 50/50 split they must win 67% just for the backer to be even and require having never lost to not have collected more than the backer.

 

[JAM]

All 3 comments above can only work when staking a champion caliber player. Then, of course it works because you have the 75+% favorite to get the cash. If you stake a "fair" game you are going to lose and lose big.

For anyone not understanding the math, I can email you a spreadsheet or discuss further. For everyone just too lazy/uninterested to do the math, I'll summarize below (all figures assume $300 bet per match for simplicity and two matches per month).

50% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,800
Player wins $1,800

50% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer loses $450
Player wins $2,250

50% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $300
Player wins $2,700

60% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,440
Player wins $1,440

60% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer even
Player wins $1,800

60% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,440
Player wins $2,160

70% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,080
Player wins $1,080

70% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer wins $450
Player wins $1,350

70% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,980
Player wins $1,620

TLR - Even with a 70/30 split, the player will have pocketed to the positive more money than the backer over time unless they win greater than 71% of the time.

But without the player, there is no action.

 

[The Kiss]

I see what you are saying but that is a long term %.

I am used to 50/50 split backer puts up the cash for half the action on a win. Usually its not a long term arraingment more like trying to get a little something going if you think its a good game for your horse.

Long term arraingment I could see you need different %s.

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

But without the player, there is no action.

Back at ya - hehe:thumbup:
Without the backer theres no action :thumb up:

Chicken and egg scenario...

 

[Johnnyt]

I've been doing it this way for a million years. My expenses come off the top and we split the rest 50-50. I've also done deals where the player is responsible for his own travel and daily expenses and I take care of the entry fee and room. In this case we split all winnings 50-50 with nothing off the top.

A little while after I joined AZB I wanted to start staking players, helping them get to events, and just helping young male and female players get into tournaments they had a chance to cash in, but no chance of paying to get there +.
I got in touch with Jay and he told me top players 50/50 after expenses. That worked out fairly well for me over the years. If I didn't give out too many freebies, I probably would be on the plus side or at least close to even . You still have to know more about the player other than what you see on here. JT

 

[branpureza]

I respect all three of you, but the above can only work when staking a champion caliber player - and almost only in tournaments. Then, of course it works because you have the 75+% favorite to get the cash. If you stake a "fair" game you are going to lose and lose big.

For anyone not understanding the math, I can email you a spreadsheet or discuss further. For everyone just too lazy/uninterested to do the math, I'll summarize below (all figures assume $300 bet per match for simplicity and two matches per month).

50% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,800
Player wins $1,800

50% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer loses $450
Player wins $2,250

50% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $300
Player wins $2,700

60% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,440
Player wins $1,440

60% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer even
Player wins $1,800

60% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,440
Player wins $2,160

70% split; player wins 50% of matches
Backer loses $1,080
Player wins $1,080

70% split; player wins 63% of matches
Backer wins $450
Player wins $1,350

70% split; player wins 75% of matches
Backer wins $1,980
Player wins $1,620

TL-DR: Even with a 70/30 split, the player will have pocketed to the positive more money than the backer over time unless they win greater than 71% of the time. At 50/50 split they must win 67% just for the backer to be even and require having never lost to not have collected more than the backer.

All these numbers do make sense but they also don't really matter because they aren't applied that way very often in real life.

No one brings spreadsheets with them to a pool room.

Usually if someone wants to back a player it's chopped up 50/50.

I'm usually the one getting staked but if I were the stakehorse for another player I wouldn't even feel right giving them less than half. It just seems like the civilized thing to do I guess.

 

[takeitdown]

It is always relative to the amount bet and the effort required.

Tournaments 50% after all expenses. If player is not a favorite in event, maybe less down to 30%.

Gambling less than $200 is 50% after table time. More often I just try to bet as a partner with the player and more on the side to get better odds. This is generally with friends only.

Gambling for more depends on the match. You CANNOT afford to consistently stake players for 10% of your bankroll and give 50% unless you are 2:1 favorite. Most often I say 1/3 after expenses but it can go down if the money goes way up.

If a backer splits winnings 50:50 and the player wins 66% of the time the backer breaks even.
It makes no sense to be a backer at anything over 20% in straight gambling and that's if your boy is at least a big 2:1 favorite.

Better to put players in the top 10% likely to win a tournament and just pray they don't dump.

 

[JAM]

Back at ya - hehe:thumbup:
Without the backer theres no action :thumb up:

Chicken and egg scenario...

There's a lot of folks who have money that can stake, but not everybody can play pool proficiently enough to win. It's a talent, and you can bet your sweet bippy that it's a lot of hard work when you're in the heat of the battle, stressful, sweating each shot.

Stakehorses definitely can make things happen with their dough, but when it comes to the hard work, it's the player who has to step up to the plate and give it their all. Sometimes you have to fade bad rolls, shitty table conditions, railbird trolls, et cetera.

Not everybody can win playing pool. That's why the player who can win is a rare commodity. Getting the money is the easy part. Playing pool is the hard part.

 

[takeitdown]

I've been doing it this way for a million years. My expenses come off the top and we split the rest 50-50. I've also done deals where the player is responsible for his own travel and daily expenses and I take care of the entry fee and room. In this case we split all winnings 50-50 with nothing off the top.

The trick is you back champions not chumps!

 

[JAM]

The trick is you back champions not chumps!

It's actually very similar to handicapping at the horse track. A horse handicapper studies the Racing Form and tries to learn everything he can about horse, the trainer, previous races, et cetera.